See, the thing is that that RTE reporter was simply interviewing him like she interviews anyone. Don't believe me? Subscribe to the Best of Today programme from BBC4 and listen for a couple of weeks. American politicians are simply unaccustomed to being called on bullshit. I hate to say it, but it's kind of like what Bill O'Reilly does, but without the grandstanding and asshattery.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

How is it warranted that they choose to sell such a horrible product, rather than moving to the other side for once? It's disgusting is what it is. How many times were Democrats ridiculed for the "anyone but Bush" attitude? Well, for the Republicans, it's "anyone but ANY DEMOCRAT, EVER!!!"

Hit and run: Robert Novak hits a pedestrian with his Corvette, tries to flee, is cornered by a cyclist.

Quote:

I didnt know I hit him. ... I feel terrible, a shaken Novak told reporters from Politico and WJLA as he was returning to his car. "He's not dead, that's the main thing." Novak said he was a block away from 18th and K streets Northwest, where the accident occurred, when a bicyclist stopped him and said he had hit someone. He said he was cited for failing to yield the right of way.

The bicyclist was David Bono, a partner at Harkins Cunningham, who was on his usual bike commute to work at 1700 K St. N.W. when he witnessed the accident.

As he traveled east on K Street, crossing 18th, Bono said "a black Corvette convertible with top closed plows into the guy. The guy is sort of splayed into the windshield.

Bono said that the pedestrian, who was crossing the street on a "Walk" signal and was in the crosswalk, rolled off the windshield and that Novak then made a right into the service lane of K Street. This car is speeding away. Whats going through my mind is, you just cant hit a pedestrian and drive away, Bono said.

I'm doing a little wait-and-see on this one, but if he ends up not being charged for a hit and run, I think a letter-writing campaign to the local press and police dept. will be in order.

I'm still trying to picture Robert Novak driving a fucking Corvette...

Investigators alleged Friday that Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick berated and attacked them as they tried to serve a subpoena to a friend, and a judge ordered the troubled mayor to pay $7,500 and undergo random drug testing........

The 38-year-old mayor and his former top aide, Christine Beatty, are charged with perjury, misconduct and obstruction of justice, all tied to their testimony in a civil trial last year.

What you won't find in there... anything noting the political party.

No wonder the Republican party is the only one who has ethical issues. All the unethical Democrats aren't Democrats.

He's been imploding ever since he took office (how he was re-elected is a mystery) as he's been incredibly corrupt for his entire tenure. I have no clue how the guy is still in office. I thought he would have been forced out back in February or whenever the latest stuff exploded.

P.S. everyone in MI is well aware he's a Dem. If a MI AP reporter wrote this story, they likely have been writing many stories about Kilpatrick for some time.
P.P.S. I definitely don't want to go to the effort to find them, but I know I've read scandal stories where the (R) affiliation isn't mentioned, especially more local scandals. I have to put them into google and visit their webpage / wikipedia page to find out the party affiliation.

It's very common for news stories not to mention party affiliation, and even more with mayors.

If you look through stories about the cunningham scandal you'll see how party affiliation is only mentioned sometimes even though it's far more common to mention party affiliation (eg, R-CA) when discussing congressmen.

There's no conspiracy here, just apparently years of careless reading on your part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

So when over time I find several more of these stories where the party affiliation is conveniently left off, what will I need then?

You can just use google. I usually use google+wikipedia since often the party isn't usually obvious on the website of the current politician's office, which tends to be a politician's de facto website unless they are actively campaigning.

So when over time I find several more of these stories where the party affiliation is conveniently left off, what will I need then?

I'm sure you will, and that's exactly the point. You can find them, commonly, for BOTH parties.

And you're the one always raving about blinders.......

I mean, you do realize that the whole Kwame thing has been going fast and furious since February, yes? There are countless stories, and I'm sure many list his party affiliation all over the place, and I'm sure many don't. If he was a republican, it'd be the same way. There's simply nothing remarkable about it.

Wait...I totally forgot... the thread is called where do both parties find these people implying that corruption is universal.....

(Head slap)

What? I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Somehow a thread tilted towards one party on appleinsider represents the media bias?

You're the person that brought the subject of imagined media bias into the discussion, not me. If you want to bring idiotic democrats into the thread, fine, super. I don't find the debate about which party has more corrupt interesting, because I'm sure there's a roughly equal percentage in both. And I certainly don't contend Kwame isn't a horrifically corrupt politician who should be kicked out of office. He is. Instead you're pulling it off the rails to rant about the media bias you have convinced yourself is out to get conservatives and coddle liberals.

For someone living in Michigan who hears about the idiocy and corruption that is Kwame just about every day, I just find you pouncing on this AP article that happens not to mention his party affiliation, when there's no shortage of one's that do, rather bemusing.

I would but then at least two people would have to start threads about how people start too many threads instead of funneling the post into the threads they already deem most appropriate for it already.

Half ShawnJ's posts are mostly editorial comments. Maybe you could get him to start this thread.

Half ShawnJ's posts are mostly editorial comments. Maybe you could get him to start this thread.

Just a thought, but maybe you'd be fairer to people if you stopped placing them in made-up categories. My comments are "editorial," whatever that means. Addabox's comments are "spittle-inflected rants." These are just lame excuses for avoiding dealing with arguments.

Just a thought, but maybe you'd be fairer to people if you stopped placing them in made-up categories. My comments are "editorial," whatever that means. Addabox's comments are "spittle-inflected rants." These are just lame excuses for avoiding dealing with arguments.

Adda does go into a rant around the middle of most of his posts. When the BushHate™ gets too thick I just ignore it and address his points. How exactly does one argue with "those neo-con cocksucking nazi's who want..... etc."

As for you.... let's look at your own posts...

Quote:

The Jungle was excellent!

However, the ending was a letdown. I was looking for a bit more than "socialism will save man kind."

This is tax discussion....

Quote:

Those are weasel words.

This is why we ignore my point about Obama... because my words are weaselly...

Quote:

That's a fantastic line!

Chiming in and piling on...

Quote:

No, I think *some* thread discipline should be adhered to.

If there's an already existing topic you can post under, posters should make some effort to post there instead of creating a new...

Actual direct bits of this nonsense...

Quote:

I think you're the only one who "realizes" that.

Bitter troll.

Wow that sure addresses the argument...

Quote:

It's not about being "talked over."

It's about your odd desire to make a new thread out of every stray political thought that enters your brain. It's one thing to post new threads about different...

More of the same....

Quote:

Yeah, what a "mistake."

This is about 10% of your current posting, reposting the sentence with a word in quotation marks implying sarcasm for someone stupid enough to use that word....

I could go on... but really what is the point. You've done it for years now. You get even more pissed off when I reflect your own language back at you so you see how ridiculous it happens to be. (insanely retarded memes anyone?)

You've become like a quasi giant. His posts are all just nonsense about how you you too uninformed or inexperienced or whatever to even have an opinion and thus he must be right in a vacuum.(Because being a librarian makes you an expert at everything)

You just pick it apart differently but still never assert anything. The words are weaselly. The point being made is just "insanely retarded." The point was already made, made too often, to closely resembles another point being made, came from the wrong source, uses the same words too often, clearly reflects a talking point due to similar phrasing, etc.

So basically what you're trying to say is that you just don't like me and you're looking for a convenient label for every time I'm a thorn in your side. I don't understand why instead of saying that I'm being a PITA you have to try force a label on me that makes no sense.

It has nothing to do with liking you. You don't make a point. You think being sarcastic about the point of the other person or dismissing it is the same as addressing it. Several years ago midwinter and myself went over this with you when you couldn't comprehend that simply asserting that you are ShawnJ and thus entitled to X amount of authori-tah due to WASPY upbringing was actually making a point.

All those example I pulled from are your most recent replies. The last three there with the quotes should hammer home a point about the actions you take but instead you personalize it.

How many thousands of dollars have spent in law school to learn how to prove a case? Are you really going to go before a judge and say sheesh your honor, that sure is a "mistake" while curling your fingers into quotation marks and then walk back to your table knowing that your sharp sarcasm has won the day? Are you going to note the judge is wrong because he wore the same robe too many times, because he brushes his hair wrong, writes his decisions out in the same manner, judged to quickly, to slowly or any of the other crap you seem to think you are fit to decide and determine?

Here is what is hilarious. You aren't a thorn in my side. You aren't even a pain in the ass. You just aren't relevant and don't seem to understand why. Perhaps, someday soon, you might wander out into that big bad world and realize that when you are a server, the customer doesn't care if you want them to follow your little rules to make your life easier at their inconvienience. When you are a lawyer, the judge won't give a damn if want to critique the opposing counsel on stupid minutia. The folks you are going to be sending money to pay bills, they won't care if you think this billing day more convienent or this bill layout more legible. You'll have to have a real point. You'll have to take real actions. There will be a real benchmark and it won't be ShawnJ pettiness.